Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The Amendment filed on 08/04/25 has been received and entered. Application No. 17/309,101 of which claims 1-20 are pending in the application, all of which are ready for examination by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment necessitated new grounds of rejection.
Applicant’s response, filed on 08/04/25, with respect to 101 rejections directed to an abstract idea of claims 1-20 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The rejections are maintained.
This action is made final in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to 35 USC § 101 rejections of claims 1-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant made the following arguments:
Regarding claims 1, 11 and 18, Applicant argues “Step 2A Prong 1: Claims are not "directed to" a judicial exception….Applicant respectfully submits that the characterization of claim 1 as a mental process overbroad and fails to incorporate the entirety of claim 1 as a whole… Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1 is directed to an improvement to a technological process. Enfish and its progeny describe that "a technological solution to a technological problem" is directed to patent-eligible subject matter”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to Applicant's argument, the claim limitations recite identifying a data transmission resource and storage consumption efficiency tolerance; converting the first unit of measurement within the electronic data record to a standardized unit of a standardized system of units, wherein the standardized unit is defined based at least partially on the unit conversion parameter defined by the configuration set electronically received from the cloud hosting system over the communication network, which are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “method…,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “method…,” “of “identifying…, converting…,” in the context of these claims encompass the user manually identifying data transmission resource, converting measurement within data record. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Furthermore, Applicant’s arguments of the claims do not merely include a mental process; the technological solution includes the application of the configuration set to facilitate conversion of the data to a common unit and format, are not reflected in the claims. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements of “receiving”, “formatting” and “transmitting” is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (data gathering and outputting, see MPEP 2106.05d). The additional elements, individually and in combination, also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Furthermore, Examiner points that an improvement to a technological process cannot be part of the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1, 11 and 18, Applicant argues “Step 2A, Prong 2: Claims integrate the alleged judicial exception into a practical application of the alleged judicial exception… Applicant submits that the present claims integrate such alleged abstract ideas into a practical application and are directed toward improved systems, methods, and tangible, computer-readable mediums that integrate real-world computing systems to identify the properties of an "annular three-phase fluid flow in a pipe… even if the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (which Applicant does not concede), the claimed invention provides a specific, identifiable improvement to the efficiency and accuracy of computer technology which "integrates [the] judicial exception into a practical application [that] ... imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception".
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner points to response to arguments II above.
Regarding claims 1, 11 and 18, Applicant argues “Step 2A, Prong 2: Claims integrate the alleged judicial exception into a practical application of the alleged judicial exception… Applicant submits that the present claims integrate such alleged abstract ideas into a practical application and are directed toward improved systems, methods, and tangible, computer-readable mediums that integrate real-world computing systems to identify the constraints of a cloud computing system and generate a configuration set based on those constraints to facilitate the storage of received data. Thus, even if the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (which Applicant does not concede), the claimed invention provides a specific, identifiable improvement to the efficiency and accuracy of computer technology which "integrates [the] judicial exception into a practical application [that] ... imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner points to response to arguments II above.
Regarding claims 1, 11 and 18, Applicant argues “Step 2B: Claims provide an inventive concept… Applicant submits that independent claim 1 is at least directed to unconventional recitations that offer specific technological improvements in computer system operations and amount to "significantly more" than the judicial exception”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to Applicant's argument, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements of “receiving”, “formatting” and “transmitting” is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (data gathering and outputting, see MPEP 2106.05d). The additional elements, individually and in combination, also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 35 USC § 103 rejections of claims 1-20 have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim 1, 11, 18 recites identifying a data transmission resource and storage consumption efficiency tolerance, wherein the electronic data transmission resource and
the storage consumption efficiency tolerance are based on constraints of a cloud hosting system; converting the first unit of measurement within the electronic data record to a standardized unit of a standardized system of units, wherein the standardized unit is defined based at least partially on the unit conversion parameter defined by the configuration set electronically received from the cloud hosting system over the communication network.
The limitations of identifying…, converting…, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “method…,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “method…,” “of “identifying…, converting…,” in the context of these claims encompass the user manually identifying data transmission resource, converting measurement within data record. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements – receiving…, formatting…, transmitting…. The “receiving”, “formatting” and “transmitting” limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering and outputting, please see MPEP 2106.05g). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements of “receiving”, “formatting” and “transmitting” is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (data gathering and outputting, see MPEP 2106.05d). The additional elements, individually and in combination, also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claims 2, 12, and 19 recite receiving, by the onsite agent system, a plurality of electronic data records from the database; converting, by the onsite agent system, the first unit of measurement within each of the plurality of electronic data records to the standardized unit; formatting, by the onsite agent system, each of the plurality of electronic data records based at least partially on the formatting parameter defined by the configuration set received from the cloud hosting system; batching, by the onsite agent system, the plurality of electronic data records after converting the first unit of measurement to the standardized unit within each of the plurality of electronic data records and formatting each of the plurality of electronic data records to form data record batches, wherein the batching is based on batching procedures defined by the configuration set received from the cloud hosting system; and providing, by the onsite agent system, the plurality of electronic data records to the cloud hosting system in the data record batches. The limitations only recite additional elements at a high level of generality. These limitations are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., receiving, converting, formatting, batching, providing) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements, individually and in combination, also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claims 3 and 13 recite wherein the electronic data record includes at least one type of data selected from the group consisting of: historian data; incremental data; structured data; non-structured data; and sensor data. The limitations only recite additional elements recited at a high level of generality. Accordingly, this additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements, individually and in combination, also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claims 4 and 14 recite wherein the one or more modifications defined by the formatting parameter defined by the configuration set received from the cloud hosting system reduce the level of information in the electronic data record based on the data richness. The limitations only recite additional elements recited at a high level of generality. Accordingly, this additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements, individually and in combination, also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claims 5 and 15 recite registering the onsite agent system with the cloud hosting system to authorize the onsite agent system to electronically communicate with the cloud hosting system. The limitations only recite additional elements at a high level of generality. These limitations are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., registering) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements, individually and in combination, also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claims 6 and 16 recite determining, by the onsite agent system, that the configuration set received from the cloud hosting system defines parameters outside of a tolerance threshold; and discarding, by the onsite agent system, the configuration set based on the determining. The limitations only recite additional elements at a high level of generality. These limitations are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., determining, discarding) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements, individually and in combination, also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claims 7, 17 and 20 recite wherein the cloud hosting system verifies that the electronic data record matches the formatting parameter prior to storage of the electronic data record. The limitations only recite additional elements at a high level of generality. These limitations are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., verifies) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements, individually and in combination, also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claim 8 recites providing, by the onsite agent system, health metrics to the cloud hosting system. The limitations only recite additional elements at a high level of generality. These limitations are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., providing) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements, individually and in combination, also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claim 9 recites wherein the configuration set received from the cloud hosting system is one of a plurality of configuration sets stored on the cloud hosting system, and wherein the cloud hosting system selects the configuration set from the plurality of configuration sets based on information associated with the registering of the onsite agent system with the cloud hosting system. The limitations only recite additional elements at a high level of generality. These limitations are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., selects) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements, individually and in combination, also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claim 10 recites generating, by the onsite agent system, a marker identifying a time in which the electronic data record is provided to the cloud hosting system, wherein the marker is configured to identify a subsequent time to provide a subsequent data record to the cloud hosting system. The limitations only recite additional elements at a high level of generality. These limitations are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., generating) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements, individually and in combination, also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruff et al. (U.S. PGPub 2016/0062954; hereinafter “Ruff”) in view of Whikehart et al. (U.S. PGPub 2007/0050206; hereinafter “Whikehart”) and further in view of Martinez et al. (U.S. PGPub 2014/0278623; hereinafter “Martinez”).
As per claims 1, 11 and 18, Ruff discloses a method for customized canonical data standardization, ingestion, and storage comprising: identifying, by an onsite agent system, an electronic data transmission resource and storage consumption efficiency tolerance; (See paras. 81, 141, wherein automated agents, electronic documents/records in which “Automated agents, scripts, playback software, and the like acting on behalf of one or more people may also be users. Storage devices and/or networking devices may be considered peripheral equipment in some embodiments. Other computer systems may interact in technological ways with the computer system in question or with another system embodiment using one or more connections to a network 110 via network interface equipment” (analogous to onsite agent system) [0081] are disclosed, also See paras. 102, 118, wherein efficient scaling operations are disclosed, also See paras. 725, wherein efficient use of storage process are disclosed; as taught by Ruff.)
the configuration set including a data richness and defining a formatting parameter, a unit conversion parameter, and a transmission parameter, wherein the data richness is based on the electronic data transmission resource and storage consumption efficiency tolerance; (See paras. 60, 102, 118, wherein efficient scaling operations, format parameters in which “terms "parm" and "parameter" refer to each of one or more parameters passed to a function. For example, "parm1" would refer to the first user-specified variable on the stack, after the buffer parameter and NG_FORMAT parameters, for the ngFormat() command”[0060] are disclosed, also See paras. 81, 141, wherein automated agents, electronic documents/records are disclosed, also See paras. 725, wherein efficient use of storage process are disclosed, as taught by Ruff.)
and wherein the formatting parameter defines how the electronic data record is formatted, the unit conversion parameter defines the units to which to convert data within the electronic data record, (See paras. 29, 60, 770, wherein formatting commands, parameters are disclosed, also See paras. 577-578, wherein formatting process are disclosed; as taught by Ruff.)
and the transmission parameter defines a parameter for electronically providing the electronic data record to the cloud hosting system over the communication network for electronic storage on the cloud hosting system; (See para. 74, storage formats are disclosed, also See paras. 90-93, wherein cloud computing/storage environment, formatting system architecture are disclosed; as taught by Ruff.)
converting, by the onsite agent system, the first unit of measurement within the electronic data record to a standardized unit of a standardized system of units, wherein the standardized unit is defined based at least partially on the unit conversion parameter defined by the configuration set electronically received from the cloud hosting system over the communication network; (See Fig. 1, paras. 83, 98, 149-150, wherein conversion module functions are disclosed, also See paras. 74, 90-93, wherein cloud computing/storage environment, formatting system architecture are disclosed; as taught by Ruff.)
formatting, by the onsite agent system, the electronic data record having the first formatting to a storage format, wherein formatting the electronic data record is based at least partially on the formatting parameter defined by the configuration set electronically received from the cloud hosting system over the communication network, wherein the formatting parameter defines one or more modifications to make to the electronic data record to convert the electronic data record from the first formatting to the storage format; (See Figs. 1, 7, paras. 83, 98, 149-150, wherein conversion module functions are disclosed, also See paras. 74, 90-93, wherein cloud computing/storage environment, formatting system architecture are disclosed; as taught by Ruff.)
wherein the one or more modifications change the level of information in the electronic data record based on the data richness; (See paras. 115, 215, 285, wherein size of data grouping are disclosed, also See paras. 291-292, 340-341, wherein size of formatted data are disclosed; as taught by Ruff.)
and electronically transmitting, by the onsite agent system after converting the first unit of measurement to the standardized unit and formatting the electronic data record, and in a manner defined by the configuration set received from the cloud hosting system, the electronic data record to the cloud hosting system over the communication network. (See paras. 29, 449-452, 1163, wherein creating standard function process, displaying in standard triplets format process are disclosed, also See paras. 577-578, 1096, wherein standard output stream are disclosed, also See paras. 74, 84, 90-93, wherein cloud computing/storage environment, formatting system architecture, and transmitting data records process are disclosed; as taught by Ruff.)
However, Ruff fails to disclose electronically receiving the electronic data record from a database, wherein the electronic data record includes oilfield-related data, wherein the oilfield-related data includes data having a first unit of measurement and a first formatting.
On the other hand, Whikehart teaches electronically receiving the electronic data record from a database, wherein the electronic data record includes oilfield-related data, wherein the oilfield-related data includes data having a first unit of measurement and a first formatting. (See Figs. 2, 6, paras. 68-69, 92, wherein raw materials, crude oil, data points are disclosed, also See paras. 50-52, 90-92, 157, wherein process of integrating information electronically, managing data records in a network are disclosed; as taught by Whikehart.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the computer art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the Whikehart teachings in Ruff system. Skilled artisan would have been motivated to incorporate the method of operating data management and control taught by Whikehart in Ruff system for effective flexible high-speed generation and formatting of application-specified strings. In addition, both of the references (Ruff and Whikehart) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as transforming data. This close relation between both of the references highly suggests an expectation of success.
However, the combination of Ruff and Whikehart fails to disclose wherein the electronic data transmission resource and the storage consumption efficiency tolerance are based on constraints of a cloud hosting system; generating, at the onsite agent system and based on the electronic data transmission resource and the storage consumption efficiency tolerance, a configuration set; a level of information and a payload size of an electronic data record, and wherein the payload size is based on the electronic data transmission resource and the level of information is based on the storage consumption efficiency tolerance.
On the other hand, Martinez teaches wherein the electronic data transmission resource and the storage consumption efficiency tolerance are based on constraints of a cloud hosting system; (See Fig. 7, paras. 100-101, wherein cloud-computing resources based on monitoring information, constraints, policies, and governor module functions in which “governor module 103 governs the cloud-computing resources and services by using monitoring information (from cloud-computing resources) provided by monitor module 112, and then issuing management actions (e.g. VPC actions) to cloud-computing resources based on monitoring information and the constraints, conditions, and policies the governor is applying to the cloud-computing resources” [0100] and “based on the application of the constraints, conditions, and policies, policy engine 603 instructs action engine 606 to issue management actions to provisioning module 106 (e.g., issue management actions to increase or decrease the number of cloud-computing resources based on CPU utilization of the existing resources). For instance, when a new threshold policy gets created the threshold may be pushed down into the analytics engine. The analytics may be continuously evaluating the flow coming in from the monitor modules and evaluating the flow against its threshold definitions” [0101] are disclosed; as taught by Martinez.)
generating, at the onsite agent system and based on the electronic data transmission resource and the storage consumption efficiency tolerance, a configuration set; (See paras. 13, 57, wherein recommend configuration process in which “recommend placement of trading platform in a cloud-computing service comprising a be used for long-term storage of non-sensitive data, an embodiment may recommend configuration of the platform to use cloud-computing services comprising a public cloud resource, or a combination of cloud and physical resources, such as archival tape storage resources” (analogous to generating configurations) [0013] are disclosed, also See paras. 65, wherein builder module functions on configuring to assemble cloud-computing service/workload for consumption are disclosed; as taught by Martinez.)
a level of information and a payload size of an electronic data record, and wherein the payload size is based on the electronic data transmission resource and the level of information is based on the storage consumption efficiency tolerance. (See paras. 59, 118, wherein different sized workloads in which “present invention may enable new capacity optimization strategies to maximize the utilization of hardware and server resources through the dynamic placement of different sized workloads, where the platform may manage placement of workloads from large (e.g. production applications, load test environments) to small (e.g. virtual desktops), perform monitoring and manage application auto-scaling, rollovers seamlessly to external cloud providers when internal capacity limits are reached, and the like” [0118] are disclosed; as taught by Martinez.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the computer art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the Martinez teachings in the combination of Ruff and Whikehart system. Skilled artisan would have been motivated to incorporate the method for a cloud computing abstraction with self-service portal taught by Martinez in the combination of Ruff and Whikehart system for effective flexible high-speed generation and formatting of application-specified strings. In addition, both of the references (Ruff, Whikehart, and Martinez) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as transforming data. This close relation between both of the references highly suggests an expectation of success.
As per claims 2, 12 and 19, the combination of Ruff, Whikehart, and Martinez discloses receiving, by the onsite agent system, a plurality of electronic data records from the database; (See paras. 25, 957, 997, wherein receiving data process, data sources are disclosed, also para. 1012, wherein functions of receiving data, parameters are disclosed; as taught by Ruff.)
converting, by the onsite agent system, the first unit of measurement within each of the plurality of data records to the standardized unit; (See Fig. 1, paras. 83, 98, 149-150, wherein conversion module functions are disclosed, also See paras. 74, 90-93, wherein cloud computing/storage environment, formatting system architecture are disclosed; as taught by Ruff.)
formatting, by the onsite agent system, each of the plurality of electronic data records based at least partially on the formatting parameter defined by the configuration set received from the cloud hosting system; (See Figs. 1, 7, paras. 83, 98, 149-150, wherein conversion module functions are disclosed, also See paras. 74, 90-93, wherein cloud computing/storage environment, formatting system architecture are disclosed; as taught by Ruff.)
batching, by the onsite agent system, the plurality of electronic data records after converting the first unit of measurement to the standardized unit within each of the plurality of electronic data records and formatting each of the plurality of electronic data records to form data record batches, wherein the batching is based on batching procedures defined by the configuration set received from the cloud hosting system; (See paras. 8, 74, 566, wherein batching transformations are disclosed, also See Figs. 1, 7, paras. 83, 98, 149-150, wherein conversion module functions are disclosed, also See paras. 74, 90-93, wherein cloud computing/storage environment, formatting system architecture are disclosed; as taught by Ruff.)
and providing, by the onsite agent system, the plurality of electronic data records to the cloud hosting system in the data record batches. (See paras. 29, 449-452, 1163, wherein creating standard function process, displaying in standard triplets format process are disclosed, also See paras. 577-578, 1096, wherein standard output stream are disclosed, also See paras. 74, 90-93, wherein cloud computing/storage environment, formatting system architecture are disclosed; as taught by Ruff.)
As per claims 3 and 13, the combination of Ruff, Whikehart, and Martinez discloses wherein the electronic data record includes at least one type of data selected from the group consisting of: historian data; incremental data; structured data; non-structured data; and sensor data. (See paras. 862, 870-871, 1077, wherein structured commands are disclosed, also See paras. 74, 151, wherein sensor readings, inputs are disclosed; as taught by Ruff.)
As per claims 4 and 14, the combination of Ruff, Whikehart, and Martinez discloses wherein the one or more modifications defined by the formatting parameter defined by the configuration set received from the cloud hosting system reduce the level of information in the electronic data record based on the data richness. (See paras. 30, 34, 93, wherein reduced hardware, energy requirements in configurations are disclosed, also See para. 74, wherein reducing output, bus traffic process are disclosed; as taught by Ruff.)
As per claims 5 and 15, the combination of Ruff, Whikehart, and Martinez discloses further comprising registering the onsite agent system with the cloud hosting system to authorize the onsite agent system to electronically communicate with the cloud hosting system over the communication network. (also See paras. 74, 81, 90-93, wherein cloud computing/storage environment, formatting system architecture, automated agents are disclosed; as taught by Ruff.)
As per claims 6 and 16, the combination of Ruff, Whikehart, and Martinez discloses determining, by the onsite agent system, that the configuration set received from the cloud hosting system defines parameters outside of a tolerance threshold; (See paras. 677, 720, 1066, wherein threshold number of conditions, exceeding execution-environment bit size, reducing division operations are disclosed; as taught by Ruff.)
and discarding, by the onsite agent system, the configuration set based on the determining. (See paras. 331, 365, 389, 502, wherein removing data process are disclosed; as taught by Ruff.)
As per claims 7, 17 and 20, the combination of Ruff, Whikehart, and Martinez discloses wherein the cloud hosting system verifies that the electronic data record matches the formatting parameter prior to storage of the electronic data record. (See paras. 64, 74, 136, 180, 440, wherein matching format process are disclosed; as taught by Ruff.)
As per claim 8, the combination of Ruff, Whikehart, and Martinez discloses providing, by the onsite agent system, health metrics to the cloud hosting system. (See paras. 171-172, wherein ultrasound data are disclosed, also See paras. 74, 81, 90-93, wherein cloud computing/storage environment, formatting system architecture, automated agents are disclosed; as taught by Ruff.)
As per claim 9, the combination of Ruff, Whikehart, and Martinez discloses wherein the configuration set received from the cloud hosting system is one of a plurality of configuration sets stored on the cloud hosting system, and wherein the cloud hosting system selects the configuration set from the plurality of configuration sets based on information associated with the registering of the onsite agent system with the cloud hosting system. (See paras. 74, 81, 90-93, wherein cloud computing/storage environment, formatting system architecture, automated agents are disclosed, also See paras. 64, 68, 1063, wherein registering indexing operation are disclosed; as taught by Ruff.)
As per claim 10, the combination of Ruff, Whikehart, and Martinez discloses generating, by the onsite agent system, a marker identifying a time in which the electronic data record is provided to the cloud hosting system, wherein the marker is configured to identify a subsequent time to provide a subsequent electronic data record to the cloud hosting system. (See paras. 74, 81, 90-93, wherein cloud computing/storage environment, formatting system architecture, automated agents are disclosed, also See paras. 32-33, 42-43, 136, wherein specific runtime formatting, execution time-sliced system, subsequent output process are disclosed; as taught by Ruff.)
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIN LIN M HTAY whose telephone number is (571)272-7293. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 7am-3pm, PST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kavita Stanley can be reached on (571)272-8352. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/L. L. H./
Examiner, Art Unit 2153
/KAVITA STANLEY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2153
Prosecution Insights